Evidence map›Paper›PMID 41298773›Full record

ArticleScientific reports2025

Performance investigation of Xanthan gum polymer flooding for enhanced oil recovery using machine learning models.

Seyed Hossein Rezaei, James J Sheng, Ehsan Esmaeilnezhad

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Scientific reports, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Seyed Hossein RezaeiDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran.
James J ShengBob L. Herd Department of Petroleum Engineering, Texas Tech University, Lubbock, TX, 79409, USA.
Ehsan EsmaeilnezhadDepartment of Petroleum Engineering, Hakim Sabzevari University, Sabzevar, Iran. e.esmailnezhad@hsu.ac.ir.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Considering the importance of oil as a major global energy source and the decreasing discovery of new reservoirs, enhanced oil recovery (EOR) methods have attracted considerable attention to maximize production from existing fields. Among these methods, polymer flooding, especially using Xanthan gum, is highly effective. Xanthan gum was chosen as the focus of this study due to its wide availability, low cost and environmental compatibility which make it one of the most practical biopolymer candidates for EOR applications. However, EOR processes are sensitive and require extensive investigations, while field and laboratory experiments are often costly and time-consuming. This study introduces a machine learning-based model which enables petroleum engineers to quickly assess whether Xanthan gum polymer flooding is feasible for a given reservoir, eliminating the need for extensive experiments. Ten parameters API gravity, initial oil saturation (%), polymer concentration (ppm), porosity (%), salinity (wt%), rock type, pore volume flooding, permeability (md), oil viscosity (cp.), and temperature (°C) were used as inputs to five machine learning models, including neural networks such as multilayer perceptron (MLP), convolutional neural network (CNN), radial basis function (RBF), gated recurrent units (GRUs), and support vector regression (SVR). Among these, MLP (R² = 0.9930) and GRUs (R² = 0.9933) achieved the best predictions. These models provide a fast and cost-effective tool for petroleum engineers to make timely decisions regarding the use of Xanthan gum in EOR operations.

Indexed as

Enhanced oil recoveryMachine learningPolymer floodingXanthan gum

Identifiers

PMID41298773
PMCPMC12749913

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.